Black Dog

No, if you read my quopte again, you'll see I said the majority joined up for reasons other than "the cause". Maybe it was financial, or maybe it was educational, but I wonder how many fighting in Iraq actually belive their leade's rhetoric. Really? i question how killing other human beings can possibly make anyone a better person. Wrong. Soldiers fight for the interests of those who send them to fight. Period. I can't thuink of a single army in the history of the modern world that wasn't told they were fighting for freedom. I prefer to think of those people- the unions, the civil rights advocates, the sufferagettes etc.- who battled entrenched privilege and authoritarianism to gain us so many of the rights we have today. And in almost every case, the tool use to suppress and squash these challenges to the establishment were-wait for it- soldiers. There's a reason that, in 1775, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "there are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." That's assuming showing pictures of the dead coming home does "dishonour" the soldier's death. It's a fallacious question. Media outlets are not legitimate military targets, especially those outside the control of the parties to the conflict. Obviously I don't believe everything I see: what I see is breathtakingly one-sided. And really, I make an effort to make myself informed of the "other" side: how many others do that and how many more simply accept the dominant narratives of the western media? Just to clarify: no where did I suggest extremely graphic pictures should be broadcast. But neither should they be censored. I honestly question your assertion that the public knows the cost of war...and if they do, I wonder how the constant drumbeat of pro-war sentiment and patriotic brouhaha affects that knowledge. That is: even if one acknowledges the costs of war, that fact alone is not neccesarily enough to override other factors that promote support for war. If you haven't been paying attention, the "support the troops" slogan is also widely used as a cudgel to stop people from questioning the war. Like Goering (who knew a thing or two about how to wage war and manipulate the populace) said, the best way to stifle dissent in war time is to brand those who oppose it "unpatriotic", which is an accusation often levelled against anti-war advocates. I would fight for things that matter, not abstracts like "my country".

So why do Albertans continue to vote Tory, who deliver all those things and who are saved from utter poverty by record resource revenues?

Don't forget Bill Frist.

If everyone thought the way I do, numbnuts, then the events of 1939 and 1942 wouldn't have happened.

Schiavo autopsy results released.

Has it ever entered you mined that they may have a case?

No and I never would. If my life, my family and my home were being threatened, I would fight. But never for country. You know why? Because the idea is bullshit. The Americans getting killed and maimed in Iraq aren't losing life and limb for the good of their country. Patriotism and nationalism are the tools the rich and powerful use to convince those with nothing to gain from war to give up their lives in order to protect the interests of those they serve. Ever has it been thus.

Raped, Kidnapped and Silenced? More here. Is freedom still on the march these days?

I question how many believe in the cause and how many joined th service for reasons other than killing Arabs. As for them being better people: give me a break consider others who've died in teh service of a cause they believe in (Mohammad Atta?)and ask if they are better people than most. How about asking if their sacrifice was necessary? How about asking why these people are dying? Lots of journalists have worked with insurgents and have been threatened accordingly. Al jazeera's Baghdad centre was bombed by U.S. forces on the eve of the invasion. But my point stands: the other side is not being represented by the western media. I'm not talking about the people in combat, but those whose only view of war is through their TV screen. All I am saying is that if our leaders are prepared to send people to die, they should be prepared to show the rest of us the results and let us decide if the death and destruction is worth it. Censorship is rarely an answer. They didn't ask to die. they didn't ask to be used as props to further the cause of war (for what are slogans like "support our troops!" used for but to silence dissent ). If their deaths can stop further slaughter, then their sacrifice would be truely worth it.

Uh..half of 780,000 is 390,000. The 10,000 number seems to be the number driven out by the Irgun alone. First, the PA has only nominal control of its designated territory, as Israel continues to launch military incursions at will as well as control the borders. Second, the PA is the legintimate governing body of the area and does not conduct militant operations. Suicide bombings are largely the work of groups like Hamaas and teh Al Asqa Martyr's Brigade. These groups continue to operate because israel continues to occupy and colonize Palestinian lands. I'm going to take the word of an armada of scholars (including,a s I said Pro-Zionist, Pro-expuilsion ones) over a propaganda web site. Ever heard the phrase "history is writen by the winners"? Do you think an admittedly pro-Israli web site is interested in the unvarnished truth, or in painting its side in the best light possible. That's the difference between our positions: I have never denied or or minimized Palestinian terrorism or Arab aggression, just pointed out how these things exist in the context of the colonial policies which led to the creation of Israel and the subsequent rendering of thousands of indiginous people homeless, stateless and ghettoized. Whereas Israel's apologists see fit to deny even the realities of the conflict, including Israeli atrocities past and present, in order to paint their side as pure good. I agree, up to the point of separating. Constructive engagement is the only way to peace. By shutting the Paelstinians behind the wall, Israel would basically be constructing immense concentration camps for the purpose of choking the last life of the Palestinians.

True. Yet, that's not what we're seeing from our southern neighbours. Is there ever such a thing as enough constructive criticism? Look, this started because you said Canadians beleif that the U.S's policies are a threat to our national security is an example of antiAmericanism. Have you asked why that belief exists?

Just because 30 per cent of the Arabs were "landless" does not mean the land was owned by Jews. Rather, most of the land settled by Arabs was owned by absentee landlords. At the time of the 1929 revolt, Jews owned just 865,000 dunums: 3 per cent of Palestine. There's an element of truth to both versions. Some left of their own accord, many others were driven out. The individual I quoted above is a pro-Zionist Israeli academic. Ah yes. That old lie. Since you like maps here's one showing Barak's "generous" offer Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors So the Palestinains are responsible for the actions of the Egyptians, the Syrians, etc etc.? Please provide an example of where I made discriminatory remarks about Americans. Not the American government, but all Americans. Once again, spare me this bullshit about Israel "defying the odds" by keeping 1.3 million people under its thumb. It's the biggest most advanced military in the region, not some scrappy underdog. Anyway, the way I see it, as long as Israel continues to gobble up land and treat the Palestinians like "beasts walking on two legs" (to use former Israeli PM Menahim Begin's charming phrase) and deny them the right to self-determination, they deserve neither peace nor security.

"A picture is worth a thousand words." Numbers on a page (1,600 dead, 12,000 wounded) simply lacks the visceral impact of an image like row upon row of flag draped coffins. If they didn't think these images would have an impact, they wouldn't censor them, would they? Puh lease. Sure we got fancy computer graphics, grainy night-vision footage from the front lines and breathless: but we only got one side of the story and one version of that side. The Iraq invasion and its predecessor set the standard for media-managment in a war zone. Live or not, its still propaganda. So you're saying sanitized depictions of death in war don't match the reality? Do you think a population weaned on violent images on TV, in movies, in video games is not already desensitized to a degree? Do you think the general public is aware of what really happends to a human body when its struck by a bullet from a high-calibre assault rifle? Do you think that if they did, that might make them hesitate about supporting a war that is turning humans into so much dead meat?

Of course, a receptive audience helps too. Why is the EU a "threat" and not an opportunity for a new partner? Think on this: our over-reilance on the U.S. means that when it goes down, we go down too. Well, we haven't influenced peace in the world with any of our curent policies and have, in some cases, actively undermined it. I think a policy of constructive engagement (of the non-military variety) is the globes only hope for peace. But then I don't believe peace is really a priority. By anti-Americanism, I mean more constructive criticism, not the unflinching support common in this particular neck of the woods.

Jewish land ownership at the tiemof partition amounted to just 10 per cent of the land allotted to them by the UN. Some left, but many, many more were driven out. Israel's leadership knew there could be no Israel with a large and hostile Arab population in its midst, so during the 1948 war, the Haganah and its affiliates were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves, which they did, even massacring the imhabitants. According to pro-Zionist historian Benny Morris, "the worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion. That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres." The PA does not want all lands returned, but eitehr a binational state or a sperate and viable Palestinian state. IIRC, since 1949, Jordan has offered automatic citizenship to any Palestinian refugees from Israel and Occupied lands. I would agree taht Arab states need to do more, but still don't see why anyone should be forced to leave the land of their forefathers because of Israeli expansion. Pointing out the failings of the state of Israel is not rascism. Actually Israel started the 1967 war which led to the occupation of the west bank and Gaza strip. I guess military occupation, land expropriation, second-class status, and daily humiliation, poverty and widespread death isn't punsihment enough for the crime of being born an Arab in Israel occupied land...

What do you suggest instead? Dialogue? Until the U.S. starts regarding Canada as something more than a vassal state (I think some of the scorn from those few commentators who noticed Canada's oppositon to U.S.positions such as Iraq was motivated by a sense of betrayal, much as England felt betrayed by the Boston Tea Party), I don't think dialogue is possible. And, given Canda's overreliance on the U.S and the latter's precarious economic situation, I don't think closer ties are the answer. Again, I think Canada needs to wean itself off the U.S. Our economy and security are too dependant on them. In this instance, we need to think like Yanks and look out for #1. Why should we help them? Why should we even be involved at all? I believe Canada's sole priority from a security standpoint should be protecting our own interests, not stirring shit up elsewhere. And I think Canadian anti-Americanism is way overblown. If anything, we don't have enough of it.

Your "rational opinion"? That's a larff. Your opinion is the same as anyone else who spouts off about Canadians' congenital anti-Americanism. No analyisis, nor do you question why Canadians who believe "U.S. Foreign Policy" (not George W. Bush, as the story suggests) poses a threat to our national security believe as they do. It's knee-jerk pro-Americanism. A child's faith in their daddy. My real question here is, even if "Canadians are fed, and eat up, anti-Americanism", SFW? The U.S. doesn't care what we think. Our opinions, positive or negative, have no bearing on U.S. policies and opinions. Canadians know this and are getting fed up with the constant hand-wringing from pundits who wail about how anti-American sentiment is posioning relations between the two countries. The past few years have shown Canadians that our opinions are not respected in Washington, whether it's on issues of trade, security or international relations. The current U.S. regime demands obediance and fealty, and does not welcome diversity of opinions. This is not a recipe for cordial discourse. Quite simply Canadians have looked across the border at the political and social climate and don't like what they see. Do Canadians have an inferiority complex with respect to the States? Sure, but that's what living under a constant barrage of opinions (again, usually from the right) saying Canada is weak, Candians are stupid, etc etc. will do. Imagine two kids, one big, strong, loud and aggressive; the other, younger, quieter, more bookish and introspective. Imagine how kid #2 would turn out if he spent his entire life being told to be more like his big brother and that he's "weak" and "irrelevant" because he's not. Think that kid would have an inferiority complex?

U.S. Opposed Calls at NATO for Probe of Uzbek Killings

Nevermind graphic images like some of the one's above. Since 1991, the DoD has prohibited the media in 1991 from photographing caskets while the military is transporting them home from combat. It tok a Freedom of Information request just to get the one's we have seen shown. My point is that war has become utterly sanitized. The 1991 Guf War was portrayed as a video game and the real and devestating human costs hidden from view. It's part of our society's general denial of death, but also a propaganda device. Perhaps if people knew the true costs of war, perhaps they'd be less wiling to support it.

Well, I don't know where the poster or the photos came from (or why there were so many spelling mistakes), but on ething I found interesting was my own reaction. I've seen plenty of horrible images from Iraq since 2003: dead Iraqi soldiers, dead Iraqi civilians, dead insurgents, maimed kids and agonized survivors. But this was one of the only times I've seen depictions of U.S. casualties. And, while I'm prety desensitized to graphic images (thanks, Hollywod), the fact that these images or ones like them probably have not been seen by Americans is, to me, teling. Let's not forget: suppression of information is as much a propaganda tool as broadcasting information.

What makes you so sure? I'm getting frustrated here because I've put this forward at least a half dozen times and you've not addressed it, and that is: why should the Arabs have moved? Why? UN resolutions vis a vis Israel are constantly vetoed by the U.S. As for what other Arab countries are doing, that's beside the point. It doesn't change the nature of the problem. You're a broken record: "UN" this and "British Mandate" that: it's all bullshit. The simple facty of the matter is: Israel was created by imperial decree against the will of the majority of the population affected, its lands seized by force of arms and unjust expropriation, its original inhabitants herded into camps where they languish today, victims of the unequal, discriminatory and oppressive policies of Israel. And yet somehow, its their fault for being driven from the land? It's their fault for not willingly giving up what was rightfully theirs? WTF? Read the link: the discriminatory laws and practices it references affects non-Jews living within Israel. the folks in the OT have it even worse. WTF? How do any posts on an internet forum constitute "discrimination"? It certainly doesn't compare to invading a country or stealing another persons land. Why not? How do you think bad laws get changed?

And, as a result of ignoring such trifles as "where people actually live", the plan(s) were doomed to failure from the get go. You simply cannot expect someone to move, give up their land and livliehoods and head off to parts unknown at the behest of a foreign body. Jewish settlement and expropriation of Palestinian Arab land and property is sanctioned by the Israeli government. There's a lot more instances of Israel absorbing others' land than vice versa. Now, if you're talking about someone getting killed whle trying to steal someone elses property, I'd call that a legitimate act of self-defense. I don't accept that. As I said before: "It seems frankly insane to me to allow one group, whose members may be hundreds if not thousands of years removed from the land, free reign while denying those dispossesed of their land less than 60 years ago the right to return." Yes there are many non-Jews in Israel. However, Israel identifies itself as a Jewish state, and Jews enjoy a great deal more benefits from living within Israel than non-Jews. Discrimination against non-Jews Does this then give Jews the right to discriminate? Do two wrongs suddenly make a right? Nice.... Yes you can. Some laws mae sense, some ar stupid. Some decisions are good, some are not. Your abnalogy is flawed. Someone oppossed to abortion can resist by not having an abortion. In other words: no one is forcing them to comply with an unjust law. A law mandating abortions would be contrary to the principle of self-determination that I believe is the basis of all human rights: that is the simple right to do as one wants so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others.

continued... First: I don't beleive Arabs and Jews are congenitally incapable of living together anymore than any other two races are (ie. blacks and whites). The animosity between the two has been excrabated immensely by the ham-handed and paternalistic actions of the western powers. I would argue that the "solution" was far worse than the problem it was suppossed to solve. As for the notion that everyone has a homeland, I reject the notion of race-based states entirely. People should be entitled to live wherever they want and should enjoy the same rights regardles sof race. And you still haven't given me a good reason why people living on the same land as their fathers and their fathers before them should be obliged to move elsewhere because they suddenly find themselves in another races' territory. Why should they have had to? What right did Britain or the UN have to tell people where to live? The problem is the Zionist ideaology is by definition exclusionary. It demands Israel exists as an exclusively Jewish state. Even today, Arabs in Israel face institutionalized discrimination as a result of their race. So, while the Arab position (championed by the PLO) has ben that israel shoukld exists as a secular democracy, the Zionist position claims all of Israel as a Jewish state. Personally I think race-based states are anathe It's interesting that the Palestinians who were shoved off their land by are subject to so much condemnation for their unwillingness to accept the sudden influx of European Jews, yet the West gets a free pass for its anti-Semetism. There was a lot more rrom in North America fopr those DP's than in a land already occupied. That's authoritarianism. The right to resist immoral and unjust laws and decrees is fundamental to human freedom. No law can touch that. Land taken by force was stolen. UN decree or no UN decree, theft is theft. You're defending the indefensible here. AG, I'll leave you with this quote:

What went wrong in Ohio

Again: so was the "evidence" that made the case against Iraq. Too bad it was cooked. We have this saying in Texas, maybe they haven't in Tennesee..."fool me once, shame on you, fool....fool....won't get fooled again." Can we expect to see a similar campaign against Israel's nuclear facilities as well? If not, why not? Let's put it this way: a nuke would assure more restraint than not having a nuke. I'd ask the same of you, but I fear you'd be unable to contribute anything if nonsense was cut out of your repetoire. No, the invasion had F.A. to do with weapons inspections, violations of UN resoltuions etc etc. It was in the works pre 9-11 and a fait accompli thereafter. A nuclear attack would result in a nuclear retaliation. No more Iran, no more regime. Again, no one gets to the positon Rafsanjani is in by being stupid, foolhardy or suicidal. Really, most of your theories so far have been light on evidence or logic and heavy on your own predjuidices re: Arabs/Muslims. Even if that were the case, it's utterly irrelevant. No it doesn't.